Outperformance for U.S. or international stocks is cyclical and has lasted an average of 8 or 9 years.
Until recently, U.S. equities outperformed for approximately 14 years.
Earnings growth for U.S. companies was stronger than that of overseas companies.
But it's important to note that multiple expansion and currency tailwinds
(for U.S. based investors) contributed considerably to performance.
How will foreign and domestic equities perform during the next 10 years?
https://www.thebostonadvisor.com/us-vs-international-stocks/

I wonder if the recent outperformance of international stocks can continue and begin to reverse this circumstance?

What is recent?
In the last 3 months, VOO+SPY did much better than VXUS. In fact, QQQ doubled XVUS.
https://schrts.co/SvWkQybv
Early in 2025, XVUS did much better.
===================

gman57; I think I'll stick with just US.

That worked in 2010-2024. In that times I consistently posted about investing in the US.
Is it going to work in the next 10 years?
It stopped working in 2025.
While the SP500 could lag, other US categories might not, like VTV=value.
Why not diversify starting at 10% with VTV+VXUS?
BTW, VGK(Europe) has been doing better than international.

I just had a talk with a friend about diversification etc... He was talking about 60/40 US/INTL and I was talking about just US. So I went and did some back testing using VTSAX (total stock) and VTIAX (total intl) Since 2010, US/INTL only beat US 4 years including this year so far. $10K in US/INTL = ~$44k, $10K in US = ~$64k. I think I'll stick with just US.

I wonder if the recent outperformance of international stocks can continue and begin to reverse this circumstance?

To a large extent that’s a result of the dollar falling against foreign currencies over past year or so. But not all is attributable to just that. Stack’s model portfolio (a collection of ETFs plus cash) hasn’t included specific international holdings since I’ve been reading him for 3 or 4 years. But no doubt holdings like XLE (energy sector) do have foreign components.
Re “ I wonder if …” Well, if the U.S. extremes (high valuations) are as bad as some speculate then it would seem like there are better values abroad. I’m not sold on that. Have actually reduced foreign exposure (Europe) over past several months.
This link below to a Meb Faber show might work. Whitney Baker worked alongside Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent until he left to join the Administration. I haven’t heard too many pundits more bearish than Baker. Whether you agree or not, she does present some interesting analysis. I haven’t changed anything in how I invest based on this one interview.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-meb-faber-show-better-investing/id1128955736?i=1000712723958

Not sure know which “market” the following numbers represent. But I dug them up in Stack’s latest newsletter. Possibly the S&P 500?
From James Stack (July 18): Current Market Price-to-Earnings 28.3 / Average since 1928 17.7
I’ve checked with M* and found that the P/E for the equity holdings of OAKBX which I recently bought at 13, with the average P/E for this class of funds at 20. (Fund has over 40% in fixed income.)
For reference, LCORX (which I don’t own) comes in at a P/E of 16 according to M*, again with its peer group at 20.
I realize P/E can be measured in different ways and that there are several other measures of market valuation besides P/E. Stack notes several other valuation metrics, all indicating an expensive market.
Bottom line: Are there some funds that might hold up well during a market rout, even considering the apparent “bubble” more generally speaking? ISTM after the March 2000 “Tech Wreck” many other markets recovered in a year or two’s time compared to the NASDAQ which remained below its 2000 high for 15 years.

The stablecoin accounts have 24/7 access from anywhere in the world & may be great for international travelers. They would also lead to democratization of the dollar in that dollar-backed stablecoins can be held by anyone anywhere.
**************************************
Yet, I understand that stablecoins cannot be converted into the dollars allegedly backing the stablecoins' value.
Not for me. No how, no way. Smells like a dead rat.

Not true. When I dabbled in crypto-staking for interest payments several years ago* I was in the Gemini dollar stablecoin and was able to convert it into USD easily and move it into my bank account without problems. Even now, at my new BTC exchange, I can cash the BTC into USD and move it easily.
* and thankfully got out intact a few months later, as the deeper I dug, the more queasy I got over things like black-box counterparty risks which turned out to be 100% prescient and very reminiscent of the conditions leading up to the GFC. And just like in '06-08, lots of (generally clueless) folks got burned, too,

"We were wrong. We are wrong. And we're going to be paying for it for a long, long time." - A sentiment held by both Randolph Duke and many MAGA voters.

The above was a perfect statement in 2022 and 3 years later.
Who gave us the biggest inflation in the last 4 decades? :-)

The “democratization of private markets” has a positive connotation but the term is very misleading.
Investment firms with private investments consider 401(k) plans to be a lucrative opportunity.
Their primary goal is to increase AUM whether or not it will ultimately benefit 401(k) participants.
"Private equity has historically shown the potential for higher returns compared to public markets,
according to SmartAsset. Private equity funds have delivered an average annual return of 13.1%
over the previous 25 years, compared to the S&P 500's average return of 8.6% during the same period."
There is wide performance dispersion between the top decile/quintile managers
and average managers according to multiple sources.
Many of the best managers are inaccessible to the vast majority of investors.
Private funds tend to be expensive, opaque, and illiquid as stated previously.
Broadly speaking, I don't believe allowing private investments within 401(k)
plans (either stand-alone or within TDFs) would benefit plan participants¹.
¹ Fidelity and T. Rowe Price, for example, include private companies in some of their mutual funds.
Mutual funds like this could benefit investors assuming the plan sponsor conducts proper due diligence.

Hi @yogibearbull Thank you for you reporting on the serious piece(s) of legislation. I'll add with some redundancy.
The GENIUS Act (Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins), signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 18, 2025, establishes the first federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins in the United States. The Act aims to provide regulatory clarity and foster innovation in the stablecoin market while safeguarding consumers and bolstering the U.S. dollar's position in global finance.
Here's a summary of the key provisions and their implications:
Payment Stablecoins Defined: The Act specifically defines "payment stablecoins" as digital assets designed for payment or settlement, with a stable value pegged to a fixed amount of monetary value, typically the U.S. dollar.
Dual Regulatory Framework: The Act establishes a dual federal-state system for regulating stablecoin issuers, allowing for both federal and state-level oversight under substantially similar standards, according to a fact sheet from the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Smaller issuers, with under $10 billion in outstanding issuance, may choose state regulation, provided the state's framework is certified as comparable to the federal standards by the Stablecoin Certification Review Committee.
Reserve Requirements: The GENIUS Act mandates 100% reserve backing for payment stablecoins with high-quality liquid assets, such as U.S. dollars and short-term Treasuries. These reserves must be held in segregated accounts and cannot be commingled with other assets. Issuers are also prohibited from rehypothecating reserves or using risky assets like corporate debt or equities as backing. Issuers are also required to provide monthly public disclosures of their reserve composition, according to WilmerHale, and larger issuers must submit annual audited financial statements.
Consumer Protection: The legislation emphasizes consumer protection through various measures:
Prohibiting misleading marketing: Issuers are barred from claiming their stablecoins are backed by the U.S. government, federally insured, or legal tender.
Ensuring clear redemption policies: Issuers must publicly disclose redemption policies with clear procedures and transparent fee structures, according to Paul Hastings LLP.

Prioritizing stablecoin holders in insolvency: In bankruptcy, holders of permitted payment stablecoins have priority over other claims regarding reserve assets.
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Sanctions Compliance: The Act subjects stablecoin issuers to the Bank Secrecy Act, requiring them to implement robust AML programs, including customer identification, transaction monitoring, and compliance with sanctions regulations. Foreign issuers seeking to operate in the U.S. must meet comparable non-U.S. regulatory standards and comply with U.S. sanctions orders.
Reinforcing the U.S. Dollar: By requiring stablecoin reserves to be held in U.S. dollars and Treasuries, the Act aims to reinforce the dollar's role as the global reserve currency and potentially increase demand for U.S. government debt.
Limitations on Stablecoin Activities: Permitted issuers are restricted to activities directly related to issuing, redeeming, and managing stablecoins and their reserves, according to Gibson Dunn. The Act also prohibits the offering of interest or yield on stablecoin holdings.
Impact on the Crypto Market: The GENIUS Act is expected to pave the way for greater adoption of stablecoins in mainstream financial services. Banks, nonbanks, and credit unions may now more confidently explore issuing their own stablecoins. The Act aims to bridge the gap between traditional finance and the digital asset ecosystem by providing a clear regulatory environment.
Extraterritorial Reach: The Act asserts U.S. regulatory authority over foreign stablecoin issuers that offer or sell stablecoins to persons located in the United States.
Effective Date and Rulemaking: While the Act was signed into law on July 18, 2025, many key provisions will not take effect immediately. Federal and state regulators are tasked with issuing implementing regulations within a specified timeframe, and full implementation is anticipated to unfold over several years.
Overall, the GENIUS Act is a significant step towards integrating stablecoins into the U.S. financial system. While supporters hail it as a move towards innovation and consumer protection, critics express concerns about potential risks and loopholes within the framework.

For the curious. The information is presumed accurate.
Investing in private equity through a 401(k) plan is a relatively new and evolving concept that has generated discussion among investors and industry professionals.
Here's what to know:
Potential Benefits:
Higher Returns: Private equity has historically shown the potential for higher returns compared to public markets, according to SmartAsset. Private equity funds have delivered an average annual return of 13.1% over the previous 25 years, compared to the S&P 500's average return of 8.6% during the same period. This outperformance is often attributed to private equity's focus on undervalued companies, real estate, and infrastructure, which may be less exposed to market volatility.
Diversification: Adding private equity to a 401(k) can provide diversification beyond traditional stocks and bonds, potentially mitigating risk and offering exposure to assets less correlated with public markets.
Access to previously inaccessible assets: For individual investors, private equity investments have traditionally been limited to institutional and high-net-worth investors due to high entry barriers and complexity. Expanding 401(k) options could provide access to these alternative investment vehicles.
Potential Risks:
Illiquidity: Private equity investments are illiquid, meaning they are difficult to sell quickly or easily, often requiring capital lock-ups for several years. This can be a concern for individuals needing quick access to their retirement savings.
High Fees: Private equity funds typically charge higher fees compared to traditional mutual funds and ETFs. These fees can erode returns, especially over the long term. Private equity funds often charge a management fee (around 2%) plus a share of the profits (around 20%).
Complexity and Lack of Transparency: Private equity involves complex investment strategies and less regulatory oversight and transparency compared to publicly traded assets, making it harder to assess and value these investments.
Volatility: While long-term returns may be higher, short-term fluctuations in private equity valuations can be significant.
Regulatory Landscape and Future Outlook:
The Department of Labor (DOL) has issued guidance regarding private equity investments in 401(k) plans, allowing their inclusion within professionally managed funds like target-date funds.
However, the DOL also emphasizes the need for fiduciaries to carefully consider the risks and ensure appropriate safeguards, including disclosure, valuations, and addressing liquidity concerns.
Recent reports suggest potential further loosening of regulations, potentially allowing more direct access to private equity within 401(k)s. This has generated debate about the appropriate balance between expanding access to potentially higher returns and protecting retirement savers from undue risks.
Some major investment firms, including BlackRock and Empower, are already planning to offer private equity options within target-date funds or other professionally managed 401(k) options in the near future. BlackRock estimates that adding private assets could boost returns by approximately 50 basis points per year and increase the total value of a 401(k) by 15% over 40 years.
Important Considerations for Investors:
Consult a Financial Advisor: It is crucial to seek advice from a qualified financial advisor to understand the complexities and risks involved before considering private equity investments in your 401(k).
Risk Tolerance and Time Horizon: Private equity is generally suited for younger investors with a longer time horizon and a higher risk tolerance, as it involves greater volatility and illiquidity.
Fees and Liquidity: Carefully evaluate the fee structure and liquidity terms of any private equity fund before investing.
Diversification and Allocation: Consider a limited, strategic allocation to private equity within a diversified retirement portfolio, as advised by financial professionals. Some experts suggest limiting private market exposure to 5-10% for most investors.
AI responses may include mistakes. For financial advice, consult a professional.

I just finished part one of "Our Dollar Your Problem" by Kenneth Rogoff which looks at dollar dominance and the future of the dollar. The dollar is used in about 90% of global trades, but the US economy has declined to about 25% of the global economy. Counties have historically had the dominant "safe asset" for about 200 years, so the US is past the mid-point.
Gross Federal debt now stands at 119% of GDP which is the highest level since WWII. All three rating agencies have lowered the rating on Federal debt. Clearly, there is room for some concern that the US will continue the current slow trend of losing dollar dominance, but the timing is uncertain.
The price to earnings ratio of S&P 500 is currently 29.5 which puts it at the highest 95th percentile since WWII. The S&P500 has returned 7% in 2025 compared to 17% for large cap international core funds while the P/E of international stocks is about a third lower than the S&P 500. Being overweight international stocks has really helped diversified portfolios this year.
The purported role of stablecoin is to have a more stable currency backed method of reducing the cost of global trade. The global financial system will look dramatically different fifty years from now. The dollar has declined 10% year to date. Purchasing agents often have the ability to purchase goods in other currencies in addition to the dollar.

Hi @hank Thanks for you work, too.
The early period starting in 2006, for several years was the main contribution period into the account. With the equity market melt in 2008 and not really getting back to 'even' for about 4 years is when we continued to make contributions; and buying 'low' pricing. A benefit of dollar cost averaging. And, yes; a few periods were 'hang on'. But, for the full period, 7.65% is definitely acceptable.
'Course the intention of a 529 being for education, the monies are tax sheltered; and with the new regs from Secure Act 2.0; if guidelines are met, up to $35,000 of the open 529 may be transferred ($7,000 max/year) to a Roth IRA of the beneficiary 'without' any tax implications.
State tax deductions from taxable income are also available to whom contributes to the account.
Taxation is in place if the account balance is liquidated in total; but the account may be transferred to another beneficiary without taxation. Taxation is only on the earning of the account, and not upon the contributions.
A pretty sweet deal for the most part
Take care of you and yours,
Catch

As described in M*'s summary of CGIC, "Most of the firm’s ETFs are carved from a legacy vehicle, which its portfolio strategy-management group uses as a base to parse into a more compact portfolio based on liquidity factors while ensuring the stylistic traits remain intact."
So when considering an ETF it can be useful to check the longer term performance of an ETF's reference fund. M* goes on to say that CGIC's reference fund is IGFFX.
CGXU is a near clone of JHVIT American International I (JAHLX), which had two good years in the last ten: 2022 when is lost "only" 21% vs 24% for its category, and 2016 (6th percentile). A couple of the other years were okay (39th percentile, 44th percentile). FWIW, JAHLX is 100% invested in American Funds IS® International 1 ("ticker" FVUSA0002K).

As we all know, as has been stated here many times, there are a lot of variables affecting a portfolio mix.
I offer this 19 year old real world example for a 529 for a view over time.
This is a self-directed account started at 50/50 equity/bond with a mandatory rebalance every September. The funds currently used are VITPX and VBMPX. These institutional tickers have changed a few time over the years, but still remain as TOTAL U.S. for holdings for each fund.
The included GFC period is: 2006-2009 (4 years).
VITPX was -3% for the period (max drawdown was about -43% for a brief period)
VBMPX was +23% for the period
---A blended annualized of +5% for this period.

YTD     3yr        5yr     10yr     15 yr
5.40%    10.55%    7.2%    7.2%     8.3%

For the full period, 7.65%. Definitely acceptable.
A true LAZY portfolio. But, this was fashioned for capital protection; as portfolio changes were limited to 1 per year initially, and now 2 per year. This was not an account we wanted to play 'cowboy' with.
Well, anyway; have a nice evening.
Catch

@Old_Joe, so true, just before the market collapsed. Took several years for us to fully recovered. Only asset stay afloat was cash, but we had a small allocation.

Our MFO contributor, Lewis Branham, wrote an article on active bond funds and ETF on Barrons. The article is behind a paywall. Here are the funds and ETFs highlighted in the article:
Dodge & Cox Global Bond / DODLX
Dodge & Cox Income / DODIX
Eaton Vance Total Return Bond / EBABX
Eaton Vance Total Return Bond / EVTR
Hartford Strategic Income / HSNAX
Hartford Strategic Income / HFSI
Pimco Income / PONAX
Pimco Multisector Bond Active / PYLD
Vanguard Multi-Sector Income Bond / VMSIX
Vanguard Multi-Sector Income Bond / VGMS

Liquidity is always challenging for institutional bond buyers outside of Treasuries and the largest corporate debt issuers. “When I look at what’s going on in the ETF space in terms of very illiquid investments making their way into daily liquid ETFs”—collateralized loan obligations, complex option strategies, private investments—“I’m concerned,” says Daniel Ivascyn, manager of the $188 billion Pimco Income mutual fund.
He also manages the $6 billion Pimco Multisector Bond Active ETF, though he stresses that the mutual fund “is a highly flexible strategy, very tactical, very active.” The ETF’s strategy is longer-term-oriented. Its expense ratio of 0.55% is lower than the 0.90% charged by the mutual fund’s retail A-share class.
Ivascyn’s team has long profited from its bets on securitized mortgage and consumer debt—home, auto, and credit-card loans bundled as tradable securities. The ETF has a 40% weighting in such debt, according to Morningstar. “We know that government balance sheets have weakened considerably [since the 2008-09 crash], and corporate balance sheets have deteriorated,” he says. “But the consumer balance sheet has only improved.”
There are other sectors worth exploring today, Ivascyn says, especially overseas, where investors can find not only better yields but also cheap currencies relative to the dollar. Although he thinks the road will be bumpy, over the next five years, he says, “one of our highest conviction views would be dollar weakness.”

@DrVenture. These funds have certainly held up the past few years. Since January 2022, beginning of the current Great Normalization market cycle, all returned about 6% annually despite drawdowns in 2022 from -3% to -6%. Since COVID in January 2020, most returned about 5% annually, but incurred drawdowns of -11% to -15%.
I expect Junkster (and FD1000), however, would exit once any of these rolled more than a percent or so, if that.

Hi @hank et al
A portion from my initial write above
--- As international investors, both retail and large houses continue to watch the machinations in this country. Many will have second thoughts about U.S. holdings,
as they watch the 'rule of law' disappear, as well as the unstable and ever changing monetary policies change at an hourly rate..........well, yes this affects our investments.
As the deterioration continues in this area, one finds the dollar whacks downward, and more future unwillingness to participate in Treasury holdings.---
I was not discussing moving accounts out of the U.S.; I'm attempting to determine how far the pendulum may swing away from some U.S. sectors. I won't chase international at this point, although this may be in error, not to.
I watch momentum, but too much of the monetary crazies are place; emanating from this country.
We haven't changed anything in the portfolio this year...yet. But, the healthcare section is damaged way beyond normal from the legislative changes. We'll stay for now. We won't abandon tech. IG bonds are still in place, as well as the MMKT's.
But, capital preservation is the highest priority.
The investing world is 'torn' and searching. And we can't and won't play the high risk, as in the earlier years.

@hank - I am of the opinion(s) that US based rules, regulations and laws mean nothing to the current administration and only exist to be bent, broken or ignored whenever they see them fit to their advantage with the mostly full backing of the current SCOTUS. I don't necessarily invest that way but it does add a layer of tempering to my decision making.
For years and years I was near always invested in nothing but equities, primarily those inhabiting the momentum space. Not no more.

One source
Excerpts: “According to the Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), there are (in 1924) 413 nuclear reactors in operation worldwide with an average age of around 32 years.”
”Nuclear energy accounts for the largest percentage of the global electricity mix in France. In 2022 it was 63%. With 56 reactors, France is also the European leader in this respect. However, the last reactor was connected to the grid in 1999 and the average age is 38.6 years. “
-

”Someone explain, please? How playing with nukes for power is a different sort of playing with nukes for weapons? Still gotta be radioactive waste produced, eh?”

We’ve had several that operated in Michigan dating back to the late 50s. Most have been dismantled. Like everything technological, they have a limited life-span. In simplest terms, fission reactions (the splitting of atoms) in a controlled environment create heat which is then converted into electricity. The early ones were “boiling water” types with the steam produced powering large turbine generators. I suspect they’ve advanced beyond that simple concept today.
You are correct that waste is created. It can be safely handled and stored, but remains “hot” (highly radioactive) for thousands of years. There has been fierce debate over how to safely dispose of the waste. Deep inside mountains has been proposed. I’m not up to speed on whether this at has been resolved. For now, I believe waste is pretty much stored on-site and shielded somehow. But it’s not a long term solution.
Accidents are rare. Loss of cooling water is the biggest threat. So these plants are typically located near bodies of water and backup electrical energy is crucial to power the coolant pumps in the event the primary sources fail. The reactors themselves are very small - perhaps smaller than a typical room in a home. Most of what one sees in photos is the supporting equipment, surrounding containment vessels, heat dispersion / cooling apparatus. While accidents are rare they are monstrous when they occur with deadly long lasting contaminants being spread over hundreds or thousands of miles - rendering farmland, water sources, homes, unusable virtually forever and causing illness or death to those contaminated. It’s this last “nightmare” possibility (and some actual catastrophic events) that has made nuclear power generation so controversial and has slowed the development of new plants. Planning must take into consideration potential threats like floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, acts of war and terrorism.
Key differences from weapons are (1) In generating electrical power, the nuclear fission process is controlled. It can be shut-down if necessary by the plant operators, assuming everything is working correctly, (2) The radiation produced is contained within a structure and not dispersed intentionally into the environment, (3) Rather then blowing something up, the power released is converted into useful electricity..
See also Nuclear Powered Ships